About Me

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Enemy that worries Trump most is Democrat-Neocon alliance inside the US. Official Washington declared war on Trump because it can't accept his idea of getting along with Russia. Bombing Syria before facts were known was Trump's attempt to deal with the 'deep state'-Daniel Lazare, Consortium News

"Donald Trump entered military terra incognita on Thursday by
launching an illegal Tomahawk missile strike on an air base in eastern
Syria. Beyond the clear violation of international law, the practical
results are likely to be disastrous, drawing the U.S. deeper into the
Syrian quagmire.

But it would be a mistake to focus all the criticism on Trump. Not
only are Democrats also at fault, but a good argument could be made that
they bear even greater responsibility.

For years, near-total unanimity has reigned on Capitol Hill
concerning America’s latest villains du jour, Russia’s Vladimir Putin
and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. Congressmen, senators, think-tank
strategists, and op-ed analysts all have agreed that Putin and Assad are
the prime enemies of “peace,” by which is meant global American
hegemony, and that therefore the U.S. must stop at nothing to weaken or
neutralize them orforce them to exit the world stage.

As Inauguration Day approached, President Obama’s intelligence chiefs
pulled out all stops to persuade the public that (a) Russian
intelligence had engineered Clinton’s defeat by hacking the Democratic
National Committee’s computers and placing thousands of embarrassing
emails in the hands of WikiLeaks and that (b) Trump was somehow
complicit in the effort.

On Feb. 13, barely four weeks after taking office, Trump crumbled
under a mounting barrage of political abuse and gave National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn the boot after it was revealed that he had talked
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition, supposedly
in violation of the 1799 Logan Act, an absurd piece of ancient
legislation that even The New York Times referred to as “a dusty, old law” that should have been repealed generations ago.

Under Media Pressure

A day later, the administration reeled again when the Times charged
in a front-page exposé that “members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016
presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts
with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the
election.”

The article provided no evidence and no names and said nothing about
whether such contacts were knowing or unknowing, i.e., whether they
involved a John le Carré-style midnight rendezvous or merely an exchange
of pleasantries with someone who may or may not have been connected to
the FSB, as Russia’s version of the CIA is known.

In a March 6 article entitled “Pause This Presidency,” Times
columnist Charles M. Blow called for little less than a coup d’état:
“The American people must immediately demand a cessation of all
consequential actions by this ‘president’ until we can be assured that
Russian efforts to hack our election…did not also include collusion
with or cover-up by anyone involved in the Trump campaign and now
administration.”

How “the American people” would demand such a cessation or who would provide such assurances was not specified.

On March 31, CNN quoted
an unnamed senior administration official saying that Trump’s hopes of a
rapprochement with Russia were fading because he “believes in the
current atmosphere – with so much media scrutiny and ongoing probes into
Trump-Russia ties and election meddling – that it won’t be possible to
‘make a deal.’”

Thus, Trump found himself increasingly boxed in by hostile forces.
But he still tried to fulfill his promise to concentrate on defeating
terrorists in Syria and Iraq. On March 30, U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations Nikki Haley announced that the U.S. administration “priority is
no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out,” but to
concentrate on defeating Al Qaeda and ISIS instead.

Finally, on Thursday, hours before Trump sent a volley of cruise missiles wafting towards Syria, Hillary Clinton taunted him by declaring
that America “should take out his [Assad’s] airfields and prevent him
from being able to use them to bomb innocent people.”The effect was to
all but force Trump to show that he was every bit as macho as the former
First Lady.

Frog-Marching Trump

Trump is certainly a fool for going ahead with such an attack in
clear contravention of international law and entangling the United
States more deeply into the complicated Syrian conflict. But the blame
also should go to the people who frog-marched him to the precipice and
then all but commanded him to step over the edge.

Within hours, all the usual suspects were congratulating one of the most scorned U.S. presidents in history for taking the leap.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: “Making sure Assad knows
that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is
the right thing to do.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi described
Trump’s missile barrage as “a proportional response to the regime’s use
of chemical weapons.”

Republican super-hawks Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, previously as anti-administration as any Democrat, issued
a joint statement declaring that Trump “deserves the support of the
American people,” while liberal heart-throb Sen. Elizabeth Warren also agreed that “the Syrian regime must be held accountable for this horrific act.”

The Guardian, as fiercely anti-Trump as it is anti-Putin and anti-Assad, conceded
that “Donald Trump has made his point” and that the next step would be
up to Russia. All in all, Trump had never gotten such good press.It’s
clear that Official Washington was pleased with Trump’s handiwork and
was eager to encourage him to do more.

But the missile barrage was not just an assault on Syria but on
reason and good sense, too. Although the Washington Post’s Adam Taylor
tried to make it seem that the only critics of the missile barrage are members of the alt-right“known for espousing racist, anti-Semitic and sexist points of view,” the fact is that criticism flowed in from other quarters.

At Alternet, Vijay Prashad pointed out that there were few
independent observers in Khan Shaykhun, the farming town where the April
4 incident occurred, to provide an accurate account. Eyewitnesses “with
the densest relationship to the armed opposition,” he wrote, “are the first to claim that this attack was done by the government.”

Consortium News’ Robert Parrypointed out that rather than dropping the gas themselves, Syrian or Russian
warplanes could well have triggered an outbreak by bombing a facility
containing “chemicals that the rebels were planning to use in some
future attack.” Parry also noted that Al Qaeda, which controls Idlib
province, could have “staged the incident to elicit precisely the
international outrage directed at Assad as has occurred.”

[Previously, United Nations investigators have receivedeyewitness testimony from Syrians about rebels staging an alleged chlorine-bomb attack so it would be pinned on the Assad regime.] Something similar may well have occurred in August 2013, a sarin-gas
missile attack on the outskirts of Damascus that killed hundreds and
that appears to have been launched from a rebel-controlled area two
kilometers away. The two incidents are curiously parallel.

The August 2013 incident, which horrified the world and brought the
Obama administration to the brink of its own attack on the Syrian
government, occurred just days after a U.N. team had arrived in Damascus
to investigate an alleged chemical attack by rebels against Syrian
government troops some four months earlier.

It made little sense for the Assad regime to have invited U.N.
investigators in and then launch a more horrific chemical-weapons attack
just miles from the investigators’ hotel. It would be a bit like
someone inviting a police inspector to dinner and then committing a
murder in full view.

Not Making Sense

As one independent analysis noted
in 2013, the Assad regime would have to have decided to carry out a
large-scale attack “despite (a) making steady gains against rebel
positions, (b) receiving a direct threat from the US that the use of
chemical weapons would trigger intervention, (c) having constantly
assured their Russian allies that they will not use such weapons, (d)
prior to the attack, only using non-lethal chemicals and only against
military targets.”

The Assad government would also have had to decide “to (a) send
forces into rebel-held area, where they are exposed to sniper fire from
multiple directions, (b) use locally manufactured short-range rockets,
instead of any of the long-range high quality chemical weapons in their
arsenal, and (c) use low quality sarin.”

All of which seems supremely unlikely, but much of the mainstream
U.S. media still treats the 2013 sarin-gas attack as the undeniable case
of Assad crossing Obama’s “red line” against using chemical weapons.
And the highly dubious 2013 incident is cited as a key reason to believe
that Assad has done it again. [Recently, The New York Times has quietly backed off the 2013 claims although not explicitly retracting its earlier reporting blaming the attack on the Assad regime.]

Assad would have possibly even stronger reasonsnot to deploy sarin
gas on April 4, 2017. He would have to make a conscious decision to
court world opprobrium at a time when the tide of the war was finally
turning in his favor with the liberation of Aleppo last December and
with most world leaders having concluded that the Assad regime was here
to stay.

To have produced and deployed a sarin bomb would have meant
deliberately risking military intervention more than three years after
Syria reached an agreement with the United Nations to destroy its entire
chemical-weapons stockpile so as to avoid … military intervention.

All of which seems supremely unlikely as well. It would be an act of
suicide – and after holding off a combined U.S., Saudi, Qatari, and
Turkish assault for half a decade or more, one thing that Assad does not
appear to be is suicidal.

Although Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said,
“there is no doubt in our mind that the Syrian regime under the
leadership of Bashar al-Assad is responsible for this horrific attack,”
in reality there is plenty of doubt.

In a Medium post , the "Shadow Brokers" group revealed a password to files associated with the leaked toolkit, purportedly from the U.S. National Security Agency . Some security experts tweeted that the password works, but that couldn't be independently verified.

An
October leak by the group included information that experts said might
identify computers used to obscure U.S. electronic eavesdropping.

- Don’t care if you swapped wives with Mr Putin, double down on it, “Putin is not just my firend he is my BFF”.- Don’t care if the election was hacked or rigged, celebrate it “so what if I did, what are you going to do about it”.- Don’t care if you're popular or nice, get er done, Obama’s fail, thinking he could create compromise. No compromise.- Don’t want foreign wars, Do want domestic wars, “drain the swamp”, “destroy the nanny state” - Don’t care about your faith, you sound like a smuck when you try to say God things- DO support the ideologies and policies of Steve Bannon, Anti-Globalism, Anti-Socialism, Nationalism, Isolationism....

TheShadowBrokers is not fans of Russia or Putin but “The enemy of my
enemy is my friend.” We recognize Americans’ having more in common with
Russians than Chinese or Globalist or Socialist. Russia and Putin are
nationalist and enemies of the Globalist, examples: NATO encroachment
and Ukraine conflict. Therefore Russia and Putin are being best allies
until the common enemies are defeated and America is great again.

A war to take out Syrian President Bashar Assad would be a
disastrous folly that would endanger American security, aid the Islamic
State and al Qaeda, and may not make the innocents in Syria any safer.

Comment: Google apparently doesn't like
this post. It has continually vandalized or erased portions of it.
Google owns the world, yet it's obsessed with silencing free speech. They made their point: elections are meaningless.